Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Save Firefox

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 266 posts

Re: Save Firefox

#101

Post by serge2k »

cpeterso wrote: post #93
mynameislegion wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the assumption I'm describing, it's irrelevant which CDM a publisher chooses. The reason being that the CDM must operate via EME, an open standard that can be implemented by any browser. Therefore, CDMs are inherently browser agnostic just like NPAPI plugins. Is it really true that CDMs are actually browser-specific or are able to enforce a browser whitelist? If so, that is horrific.

> Is it really true that CDMs are actually browser-specific or are able to enforce a browser whitelist? The EME standard only covers the DOM APIs and the interactions between the video player JavaScript and the CDM. There is no standard browser API or ABI for CDMs like there is for NPAPI.

Does that matter if the CDM is only exposed to sites via a standardized API?

Re: Save Firefox

#102

Post by icebraining »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #60
dasil003 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your last sentence is exactly right. Sure DRM is bad, but you can't tell people not to build things a priori like that, and DRM will be built because the content studios demand it, and the studios hold the content which everyone wants. The EFF greatly overestimates the amount of influence browser makers have. No amount of technical pressure will make an ounce of difference, because browser makers have literally no le…

EME is not even a complete standard, its basically just a shim to bridge in a closed source DRM module that can do arbitrary things on the host platform, and needs specific DRM module support from providers. You cant just target EME as Netflix, or some other streaming site, you have to target Google Widevine, or Apple Fairplay etc. Implementing EME in no way enables you to use these DRM technologies, so its a 100% wo…

closed source DRM module that can do arbitrary things on the host platform

I don't know about other browsers, but at least Firefox is sandboxing EME modules so that they can only do a few approved things (security bugs aside, of course).

Re: Save Firefox

#103

Post by ubernostrum »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #78
dasil003 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, having spent the last decade founding and building a premium content streaming service I am well aware of what EME is and how the CDMs work. It is infinitely preferable to a proprietary plugin.

How? It is totally inoperable without a proprietary plugin backing it up.

I was working for Mozilla when EME first came up, and sat in one of the big sessions at that year's Mozilla Summit about it. Wrote up some thoughts here:

http://www.b-list.org/weblog/2013/oct/16/eme/

Re: Save Firefox

#104

Post by mynameislegion »

wmf wrote: post #65
mynameislegion wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read many articles critical of EME and this is the first time I've heard this information. If true, as you said, it is THE issue. It was always my assumption that EME represented a standard way for CDM's to interact with the browser. EME is to CDMs as NPAPI is to plugins. That is to say, a CDM can theoretically work in any browser implementing the EME standard. Is this assumption completely false?

a CDM can theoretically work in any browser implementing the EME standard Nope, it's the opposite. The CDM API is not standardized and in practice every browser uses a different CDM: Chrome has Widevine, Firefox has Adobe, IE/Edge has PlayReady, and it's not clear what Safari uses.

The CDM API is called "EME" and it is a standard. That's why Widevine can be made to work with Firefox (https://github.com/i-rinat/gmp-widevine).

EDIT: Firefox now supports Widevine

> Beginning in version 47, Firefox desktop also supports the Google Widevine CDM.

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm

The issue with browser-specific CDMs at this time seems to be only because of varying completeness of EME implementations.

Re: Save Firefox

#105

Post by serge2k »

hsod wrote: post #36
gshulegaard wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a little confused by this comment. What status quo? Silverlight is deprecated. Flash is (at least seems to me) taking its final breaths. HTML5 pushed many web native standards for open media: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Guide/HTML/Usin... . In fact, the HTML5 video/audio was so open that YouTube had to kill a Chrome extension that allowed users to use YouTube as a music source without advertisem…

The status quo is this: If I build a browser right now from scratch, it can't play Netflix videos.

Can't you just implement NPAPI to get silverlight support and then fake a user agent to get Netflix to give you the right content?

Re: Save Firefox

#106

Post by wmf »

mynameislegion wrote: post #104
wmf wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a CDM can theoretically work in any browser implementing the EME standard Nope, it's the opposite. The CDM API is not standardized and in practice every browser uses a different CDM: Chrome has Widevine, Firefox has Adobe, IE/Edge has PlayReady, and it's not clear what Safari uses.

The CDM API is called "EME" and it is a standard. That's why Widevine can be made to work with Firefox ( https://github.com/i-rinat/gmp-widevine ). EDIT: Firefox now supports Widevine > Beginning in version 47, Firefox desktop also supports the Google Widevine CDM. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm The issue with browser-specific CDMs at this time seems to be only because of varying completeness of EME…

That shim exists because Chrome and Firefox have different CDM APIs. There isn't a common API.

Re: Save Firefox

#107

Post by wmf »

cpeterso wrote: post #73
Klathmon wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They 100% would "build their own browser" in the form of custom apps. Hell they already do on just about every platform except desktop...

Netflix already has their own Windows desktop app: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/apps/netflix/9wzdncrfj...

So why corrupt the Web? Why not just tell people to install the app?

Re: Save Firefox

#108

Post by shmerl »

xori wrote: post #67
shmerl wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no valid use of DRM. It's always invalid. It's based on its unethical nature (overreaching preemptive policing).

I think mark_l_watson has a point, when it comes to renting or streaming content DRM is the publisher's method of control. It's when I purchase a single player game that is online only that I get angry.

Renting doesn't excuse the overreaching nature of DRM however, and its usage of presumption of guilt. I.e. such level of control is still unacceptable. Besides, all that is purely theoretical in case when the rented digital product isn't available DRM-free for purchasing (which can be pointed out to as an option for those who don't want renting). And in case of video, that's exactly the situation. I.e. it's not DRMed because it's rented, it's DRMed because they just want to always DRM it.

Re: Save Firefox

#109

Post by yborg »

Ileca wrote: post #27

You can test your convictions by disabling DRM content in Firefox. Uncheck "Play DRM content". Unfortunately, convictions won't have consequences on future decisions because the standard is here and the more you wait the more it becomes embedded. W3C allowed it to come to light when various plugins wouldn't make DRM viable or at least more difficult to implement and reach general agreement. Now, even if you can opt o…

>Uncheck "Play DRM content".

You need to turn this on about:config browser.eme.ui.enabled true to allow the checkbox to be displayed.

FF 46.0.1 OS X.

Re: Save Firefox

#110

Post by mynameislegion »

mynameislegion wrote: post #35
jflatow wrote: post #22

> This system, "Encrypted Media Extensions" (EME) uses standards-defined code to funnel video into a proprietary container called a "Content Decryption Module." For a new browser to support this new video streaming standard -- which major studios and cable operators are pushing for -- it would have to convince those entertainment companies or one of their partners to let them have a CDM, or this part of the "open" We…

I've read many articles critical of EME and this is the first time I've heard this information. If true, as you said, it is THE issue. It was always my assumption that EME represented a standard way for CDM's to interact with the browser. EME is to CDMs as NPAPI is to plugins. That is to say, a CDM can theoretically work in any browser implementing the EME standard. Is this assumption completely false?

That assumption may indeed be false.

See here[0] in the FAQ "What does this mean for downstream users of the Firefox code base?"

>>> The solution consists of three parts: the browser, the CDM host and the CDM.

>>> However, the CDM will refuse to work if it finds itself in a host that isn’t identical to the Mozilla-shipped CDM host executable.

At first, I interpreted this to mean Mozilla, not Adobe, had implemented the restriction due to some particulars about the deal with Adobe. But I was wrong...

>>> This leaves downstream users of the Firefox code base with the following options:

>>> 4. Making arrangements directly with Adobe to get a non-Mozilla CDM host executable recognized by the CDM.

In other words, the CDM can discriminate on the CDM host.

My only hope is that this is non-standard temporary behaviour while Mozilla finishes EME. Otherwise, this is extremely terrible.

[0] https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-missi...

Post reply on HN